In response to criticisms of the Conflict Tactics Scales, Straus revised the original scale to include sexual aggression and injury. The purpose of the present study was to use this new scale to replicate and expand existing knowledge of psychological, physical, and sexual aggression in dating relationships. Four-hundred-eighty-one college students completed the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales. As expected, females reported perpetrating more psychological aggression than males; there were no gender differences in reported physical aggression; and psychological and physical aggression tended to co-occur. Contrary to previous research, there were no gender differences in injuries. As expected, males reported perpetrating more sexual coercion than females; however, females also reported perpetrating sexual aggression, and there were no gender differences in reported victimization. For males, sexual coercion perpetration (not victimization) was related to the perpetration and victimization of physical and psychological aggression. For females, both sexual coercion perpetration and victimization were related to the perpetration and victimization of psychological aggression and victimization from physical aggression, but not to physical aggression perpetration.

No abstract

Several explanations have been forwarded to account for sexual coercion in romantic relationships. Feminist theory states that sexual coercion is the result of male dominance over women and the need to maintain that dominance; however, studies showing that women sexually coerce men point towards weaknesses in that theory. Some researchers have, therefore, suggested that it is the extent to which people view the other gender as hostile that influences these rates. Furthermore, much research suggests that a history of childhood sexual abuse is a strong risk factor for later sexual victimization in relationships. Few researchers have empirically evaluated the first two explanations and little is known about whether sexual revictimization operates for men or across cultures. In this study, hierarchical linear modeling was used to investigate whether the status of women and adversarial sexual beliefs predicted differences in sexual coercion across 38 sites from around the world, and whether sexual revictimization operated across genders and cultures. Participants included 7,667 university students from 38 sites. Results showed that the relative status of women at each site predicted significant differences in levels of sexual victimization for men, in that the greater the status of women, the higher the level of forced sex against men. In addition, differences in adversarial sexual beliefs across sites significantly predicted both forced and verbal sexual coercion for both genders, such that greater levels of hostility towards women at a site predicted higher levels of forced and verbal coercion against women and greater levels of hostility towards men at a site predicted higher levels of forced and verbal coercion against men. Finally, sexual revictimization occurred for both genders and across all sites, suggesting that sexual revictimization is a cross-gender, cross-cultural phenomenon. Results are discussed in terms of their contributions to the literature, limitations of the current study, and suggestions for future research.

Research showing that women commit high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against men has been controversial because IPV is typically framed as caused by the patriarchal construction of society and men’s domination over women. Johnson’s (1995) typology of common couple violence (CCV) and intimate terrorism (IT) attempted to resolve this controversy, but he maintained that IT was caused by patriarchy and committed almost exclusively by men. This study investigates Johnson’s theory as it applies to a sample of 302 men who sustained IPV from their female partners and sought help, and a comparison sample of community men. Results showed that the male helpseekers sample was comprised of victims of IT and that violence by the male victims was part of a pattern of what Johnson labels violent resistance. Men in the community sample who were involved in IPV conformed to Johnson’s description of CCV. Results are discussed in terms of research, policy, and practice implications of acknowledging women’s use of severe IPV and controlling behavior against their male partners.

Over 30 years of research has established that both men and women are capable of sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) by their opposite-sex partners, yet little research has examined men's experiences in such relationships. Some experts in the field have forwarded assumptions about men who sustain IPV–for example, that the abuse they experience is trivial or humorous and of no consequence and that, if their abuse was severe enough, they have the financial and psychological resources to easily leave the relationship–but these assumptions have little data to support them. The present study is an in-depth, descriptive examination of 302 men who sustained severe IPV from their women partners within the previous year and sought help. We present information on their demographics, overall mental health, and the types and frequency of various forms of physical and psychological IPV they sustained. We also provide both quantitative and qualitative information about their last physical argument and their reasons for staying in the relationship. It is concluded that, contrary to many assumptions about these men, the IPV they sustain is quite severe and both mentally and physically damaging; their most frequent response to their partner's IPV is to get away from her; and they are often blocked in their efforts to leave, sometimes physically, but more often because of strong psychological and emotional ties to their partners and especially their children. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for policy and practice.

A large body of research clearly indicates that men are victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). However, in Portugal, the phenomenon of male victims of IPV remains hidden and is not a target of research, public policy, or social attention. This exploratory study analyzed the prevalence of victimization, help-seeking behaviors, and needs of 89 men who defined themselves as victims of IPV. Men reported that they had been the victims of at least 1 abusive behavior by their current or former female partner. Psychological violence, followed by physical and sexual violence, was the most frequently reported experience. The majority of the men did not seek help because of difficulty in self-identifying as victims, shame, and distrust of the support system. When they did seek help, informal sources, such as friends and family, were used more often than formal sources. In terms of formal support, victims used health professionals and social/victim support services more than any other type. The male victims evaluated the formal resources (e.g., social/victim support services, police, justice system) as unhelpful. A mediation model showed that both frequency of physical violence and self-reported impact of IPV predicted help-seeking, with impact of IPV partially mediating the association between physical IPV and help-seeking. The results indicate the difficulties that men have in recognizing themselves as victims of abuse, their reluctance to seek help, the barriers they face, and their heterogeneous and idiosyncratic needs. The implications regarding masculinity, the help-seeking system, and public policy are discussed.

Evidence showing that women use intimate partner violence (IPV) against their male partners has existed since the 1970s when IPV was first systematically examined. This article discusses the various sources of prevalence rates of IPV by women against men, the dominant theoretical explanation for IPV in general, and its implications for female perpetrators and male victims in the social service and criminal justice systems, as well as the current evidence of the consequences of women's use of IPV to the men who sustain it. Finally, we discuss directions for future research, including our own study focusing on men who sustain IPV. KEYWORDS domestic violence, female perpetrators, male victims, mental healthIntimate partner violence (IPV) used by women against men is a phenomenon that has received little attention, both within the scholarly literature and the popular media. Despite this lack of attention, for nearly three decades research on IPV has shown that men are frequently the targets of IPV by their female partners. Estimates from national family violence surveys show that within a given year, at least 12% of men are the targets of some sort of physical aggression from their female partners, and 4% (or over 2.5 million men in the United States) sustain severe violence (Straus, 1995). Despite

This article discusses the research on abuse against men in intimate relationships with a primary focus on the effects of this abuse. We begin by discussing the incidence of physical aggression against men, then address methodological and conceptual issues associated with the incidence data. We next review studies assessing the effects of aggression against men and discuss ways in which this research can be furthered and improved. Finally, we discuss why men would choose to stay in these relationships and consider the scant research on emotional abuse against men.